Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus... (page 12)

BrendaCloutier

Leo, Avi, that's a great idea. and in the process it would be possible to point out how the WTBTS have changed their tune, erm, publications, to cover their tracks. or is that tracts?

"Free" my arse.

Elsewhere....I could imagine that the WTBTS' lawyers will make a motion to deny the whole CD-ROM to be entered into evidence. But their claim that Quotes has cited the passages "selectively" clearly opens the door for his defense to enter the original articles (in their entirety) of each and every quote he has made into the public record, to prove that the quotes were not selective as claimed.

Axelspeed

But their claim that Quotes has cited the passages "selectively" clearly opens the door for his defense to enter the original articles (in their entirety) of each and every quote he has made into the public record, to prove that the quotes were not selective as claimed.

Exactly! They don't they really want to go down that road. Do they?

Black Man

Quotes:

UNBELIEVABLE!! My jaw is still on the floor. Anyway, I hope to God this goes to court because nothing good can come of it from the WTS end. Like other posters said they'll try intimidation and bully tactics so that this never hits the courtroom. I'm gonna send this around to a couple of news services that I'm familiar with. You will definitely need a pit-bull of an attorney. PLEASE let us know if there's anything that can be done to help out with this. Your site has helped me out immensely. I desperately want to see some egg in the WTS face......

Kenneson

Sounds to me that they they're saying that they have a trademark on the word Watch Tower or watchtower and that it is exclusive to them. Perhaps Quotes can remind them of what they wrote in the Jehovahs's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, in 1993, page 48:

"The expression "Watch Tower" is not unique to Russell's writings or to Jehovah's Witnesses. George Storrs published a book in the 1850s called The Watch Tower: Or, Man in Death; and the Hope for a Future Life. The name was also incorporated in the title of various religious periodicals."

So, if they didn't originate the term, they stole it from someone else.

Also, remember that the term "watchtower" appears in Isaiah 21:8--and was there, long before the Watch Tower Society ever came on the scene.

Eyebrow2

My advice to Quotes… if the WTS does not submit the entire contents of the CD-ROM as evidence, then YOU should. Time to warm up the ol' printer and put it to work!

Ahhhhhh...very clever.

Perry

Hello Everyone. Good thread. I've been gone for a while but it's nice to see all the astute regulars are still here dissemanating truth.
I found clause 21 especially instructive in a happifying sort of way:

21. The content of the CD-ROMs is not readily available to the general public. Some of the content is intended only for Jehovah’s Witnesses... The first sentence appears to be a lie; since, as many here have noted that most if not all this material was required to be distributed to the "general public" when first published. This apparant subterfuge appears to be unmasked by the content of the second sentence which reveals the actual problem that the Plantiff has.

What might some of that content be that is intended "only for Jehovah's Witnesses" as they put it? If we look at just one doctrine, it might help us to understand how the first sentence only appears to be a lie and that the veracity on the second sentence is henceforth bolstered as a valid argument when viewed in this new light.
* Insight, Volume 2 pp.244-5 Lie *
LIE, **The opposite of truth. Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth ...+**

So, once again friends; we only thought that we were deceived by the Watchtower, when in actuality we (and the courts) are simply not "entitled" to know the truth. When we understand the proper way of looking at things, deception isn't really deception at all, but rather a spiritual provision designed for our own protection.

"Momma always did have a way of 'splaining thangs so I could understand". - Forrest Gump

Leolaia

I don't know if this is significant or not, but there was an interesting discussion in the "Question Box" of the March 1993 Kingdom Ministry. The question was asked: "Is it proper to reproduce publications of the Society for distribution for others?" The situation described is here somewhat similar: people who "have taken it upon themselves to reproduce Society publications and make them available" in a number of ways, including "reprints" and "computer reproductions" for the benefit of those who "missed out on the benefits of material published in the past that is no longer available through the Society".

In light of the current legal proceedings, one would guess that the article explains that it is improper because it violates copyright laws and such people would be guilty of copyright infringement. Nope! Wrong answer! The article basically says two things: (1) God's channel will know and provide the publications that are needed. One needs not "run ahead" of the organization to provide things that the organization itself has not seen fit for continued distribution. (2) Such activity, when done for "financial profit", is wrong because it "exploits" theocratic relationships and "commercializes ... God's Word or matters related to it". Nowhere does this state that people doing this are legally liable for not only redistributing the literature but selling it. It only complains that such actions are ethically or morally questionable for making people "profit-minded" who do not "keep commerical activity in its proper place". The silence of the legal issues is quite interesting, and of course, Quotes was offering the quoted material free of charge...without any "commercialization" at all.

Jim_TX

"If you do not agree to its terms, do not install or otherwise use the Product. Rather, return it to Watch Tower or transfer it to a user who agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement."

In this part of the EULA, they do NOT say 'Jehovah's Witness', but rather 'user'.

Quotes is a 'user'. Plain and simple.

Oh - later on they talk about 'transferring' the information to a JW - but I read that as something different from the initial statement.

Anyway... as has been mentioned before... we need to be careful what strategies are discussed openly here... there are no doubt 'other eyes' watching this discussion... and will no doubt use the information presented here to help their own case.

Regards,

Jim TX

Simon

Don't they have to define what "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is / are?

Am I one? I was baptised. I didn't quit. I wasn't Df'd. I didn't sign anything. I was a minor when baptised.

Taking their explanation, being a "witness of Jehovah" is something dished out by God and something anyone could claim. Are they now claiming to be god? I know they have acted like they think they speak for god for some time but really I doubt he'd use the WT for toilet paper in reality.

Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus...

Hello Everyone. Good thread. I've been gone for a while but it's nice to see all the astute regulars are still here dissemanating truth. I found clause 21 especially instructive in a happifying sort of way:

"Momma always did have a way of 'splaining thangs so I could understand". - Forrest Gump

Share this

Hello Everyone. Good thread. I've been gone for a while but it's nice to see all the astute regulars are still here dissemanating truth.
I found clause 21 especially instructive in a happifying sort of way: